DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to. Since the claim refers to a second water heater without referring to a first water heater, it is suggested that the claim depend on claim 33, which recites a first water heater in order to enhance the clarity of the claim. Note that if this suggestion is taken, that a clarifying amendment regarding the heat exchanger being a second heat exchanger would be required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the plate heat exchanger” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 32, from which claim 33 depends.
Claim 38, which depends on claim 33 overcomes the antecedent basis rejection since claim recites that the heat exchanger is a plate heat exchanger. Therefore claim 38 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
The remaining claims depending on claim 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since they do not overcome the claim 33 rejection under 335 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the “preferably” range and the “more preferably” range are required by the claim.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the “preferably, the mixing liquid comprises liquid CO2” is required by the claim.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the shell and tube heat exchanger” is not previously referred to in the claim. Claim 43 is additionally rejected for lacking antecedent basis since the claim refers to “the second water heater” which is not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the shell and tube heat exchanger” is not previously referred to in the claim. Claim 44 is additionally rejected for lacking antecedent basis since the claim refers to “the second water heater” which is not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the second water heater is not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the first water vessel, the first water circulation device, the shell and tube heat exchanger, second water heater, second water circulation device are not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the first or second water circulation devices, first or second water vessel and second water heater are not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the first or second pump” are not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the mixing control unit, control unit are not previously referred to in the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since each of a-j start with “The” and refer to limitations that are not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 32, from which claim 50 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the first water heater, first water heater inlet, plate heat exchanger, fumigant inlet and fumigant outlet are located on the frame are not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 32, from which claim 50 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32, 36, 37, 38, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Leitner (U.S. Patent 6,047,496).
Regarding claim 32, Leitner teaches an onsite system for preparing a fumigant formulation for fumigating stored foodstuffs (see figure 2, the system is considered onsite, onsite being the location of the fumigation operation, while the materials being worked upon is considered intended use, column 1 lines 6-15 teaches fumigation processes), comprising: a source of an active liquid fumigant (item 213, toxic agent is considered in a liquid state while stored in item 213) and a source of a liquid diluent for the fumigant (item 102 which contains liquid carbon dioxide); a first vaporizing station for receiving and vaporizing a supply of the active liquid fumigant (line feeding from 213 to item 214); a second vaporizing station interconnected to the first vaporizing station for vaporizing a supply of mixing liquid diluent (line feeding for item 102 to item 214); and a mixing station fluidly connected to the first and second vaporization stations, the mixing station adapted to receive a vaporized stream of fumigant and mixing liquid diluent to produce a vaporized fumigant mixture (item 214 manifold), wherein the mixing station includes a vapor control means to mix the vapor streams in a predetermined mixing ratio for gaseous fumigation of stored foodstuffs (manifold 214 is used to mix the gases, while the desired ratio is considered intended use, column 5 lines 21-24 teaches preselected proportions of gas are mounted on scale 101).
Regarding claim 36, the specific mixing ratio is considered intended use of the fumigation system, however Leitner teaches obtaining a predetermined amount of carbon dioxide and toxic agent (see column 3 last line to column 4 line 7) and is considered capable of having the claimed mixing ratio.
Regarding claim 37, the specific flow rates are considered intended use of the fumigation system, however Leitner teaches obtaining a specific flow rate of gas (see column 7 lines 45-52) and is considered capable of operating at the claimed flow rates.
Regarding claim 38, the specific flow rates are considered intended use of the fumigation system, however Leitner teaches obtaining a specific flow rate of gas (see column 7 lines 45-52) and is considered capable of operating at the claimed flow rates.
Regarding claim 49, Leitner teaches wherein the mixing control unit and control unit () comprises an electronically controllable gate valve (column 6 lines 26-41 teaches a valve controller and valve which is considered reading on a gate valve since the valve is capable of preventing material of flowing downstream when closed).
Regarding claim 50, Leitner teaches wherein the system includes one or more controllers for controlling the one or more electronically controllable valves on the mixing and control unit (column 6 lines 26-41 teaches a valve controller and valve which is considered reading on a gate valve since the valve is capable of preventing material of flowing downstream when closed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Leitner (U.S. Patent 6,047,496).
Regarding claim 33, Leitner teaches a first water heater (column 7 line 61-62 teaches a pressure heater for heating water); a heat exchanger connectable to the first water heater to receive heated water therefrom (item 103 which inherently requires a source of heat), the plate heat exchanger being configured to receive, heat and vaporize the fumigant entering into the heat exchanger via a fumigant inlet (see item 109 which feeds fumigant into item 103). Regarding claim 33, Leitner teaches the heat exchanger downstream of the mixer, but is silent to the heat exchanger feeding material to the mixer. Regarding claim 33, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the heat exchanger relative to the mixer in order to obtain the desired mixed gas product since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 34, Leitner is silent the second water heater/heat exchanger configuration. Regarding claim 34, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of water heaters and heat exchangers in order to obtain the desired amount of gas since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 35, Leitner teaches carbon dioxide (see abstract carbon dioxide item 102). Regarding claim 35, while Leitner teaches methyl bromide (see abstract item 213), Leitner is silent to the use of ethyl formate. Regarding claim 32, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to try substituting the fumigant in order to obtain the desired product.
Regarding claim 38, Leitner teaches wherein the heat exchanger for the first vaporizing station is a plate heat exchanger (the heat from the water from item 103 does not directly contact the gas and therefore considered reading on a plate heat exchanger) which is configured to heat the fumigant to a temperature at or above a pre-determined fumigant vaporization temperature (the temperature is considered intended use; however, column 8 lines 28-30 teaches a temperature range of 70-250 degrees F).
Regarding claim 39, Leitner teaches wherein the first water heater is configured to heat the water therein to a temperature in a range between 60 degrees Celsius and 99 degrees Celsius (column 8 lines 28-30 teaches a range of 70-250 degrees F, which includes 60 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 40, the specific flow rates are considered intended use of the fumigation system, however Leitner teaches obtaining a specific flow rate of gas (see column 7 lines 45-52) and is considered capable of operating at the claimed flow rates.
Regarding claim 41, the specific flow rates are considered intended use of the fumigation system, however Leitner teaches obtaining a specific flow rate of gas (see column 7 lines 45-52) and is considered capable of operating at the claimed flow rates.
Regrading claim 42, Leitner teaches wherein the system is configured to provide heated water to the plate heat exchanger and/or shell and tube heat exchanger at a temperature in the range of about 80 degrees Celsius to 98 degrees Celsius (column 8 lines 28-30 teaches a range of 70-250 degrees F, which includes 80 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 43, Leitner teaches wherein the system is configured to circulate the water around: the plate heat exchanger and the first water heater (column 7 lines 60-63 teaches using a heater for heating water which is considered circulating the water around the heater and heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 44, Leitner teaches wherein the system is configured to circulate the water around: the plate heat exchanger and the first water heater (column 7 lines 60-63 teaches using a heater for heating water which is considered circulating the water around the heater and heat exchanger) using a water circulation device (the piping inherently required to deliver water to the heater and heat exchanger is considered reading on the circulation device).
Regarding claim 45, Leitner teaches wherein the first water heater is connected to a water vessel via the water heater inlet (column 7 lines 60-63 teaches using a heater for heating water which is considered circulating the water around the heater and heat exchanger, a water vessel would inherently be required to store the water prior to delivery to the heater, each apparatus is considered inherently requiring ports for allowing the water to flow through).
Regarding claim 46, Leitner teaches apparatus is configured to circulate water around the plate heat exchanger, first water heater and first water vessel using the first water circulation device (column 7 lines 60-63 teaches using a heater for heating water which is considered circulating the water around the heater and heat exchanger, a water vessel would inherently be required to store the water prior to delivery to the heater, each apparatus is considered inherently requiring ports for allowing the water to flow through).
Regarding claim 51, Leitner teaches a structure such as a house which is considered reading on a frame (see column 5 lines 14-16). Regarding claim 51, Leitner is silent to the specific arrangement of items on the house. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the elements onto the frame to allow for a more convenient user experience since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Leitner (U.S. Patent 6,047,496) in view of Albro (U.S. Publication 2013/0270724).
Leitner is silent to the pump configuration of claim 47. Regarding claim 47, Allbro teaches pumps and heat exchangers (paragraph 24). Regarding claim 47, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger configuration of Leitner with the pump configuration of Allbro in order to transport the fluid (see Allbro paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 48, the specific flow rates are considered intended use of the fumigation system, however the apparatus of Leitner is considered capable of flowing water at a claimed flow rate. Leitner is silent to the pump configuration of claim 48. Regarding claim 48, Allbro teaches pumps and heat exchangers (paragraph 24). Regarding claim 48, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger configuration of Leitner with the pump configuration of Allbro in order to transport the fluid (see Allbro paragraph 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights